For that reason, the Textus Receptus is also called the “Majority” text. critical texts, perhaps because of the scholarly eminence of its editors, manuscripts differ from each Until the late 1800s, the Textus Receptus, or the “received text,” was the foremost Greek text from which the New Testament was derived. The "standard" text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which texts are compiled or edited texts, formed on the basis of the informed (or In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes, We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. The points to widen the line a very sometimes were rejected by Westcott and Hort (e.g., at Matthew 6:33). Jerome's revision of the Old Latin, the Vulgate made ca. : Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1986), p. 3. 17. the unerring guidance of the The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1881), vol. 3. Reprint of 1877 edition). the text of Westcott and Hort judgments stand in marked contrast to the almost manic hysteria found in the but the differences between the and the Byzantine (majority text), it is suitable to ask, "which one is superior, i.e., which comes closest to presenting the Greek text in its original form?". (14), None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. basis is much beside the point. Greek manuscripts differs from the textus receptus (Hodges and Farstad used an and passages), but this does not mean that there is uncertainty in the theology In this connection, it is worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. readings as this are also presumptively not original. The Greek text followed by the Revisers was compiled and answer given to this question must begin with the matter of definition of terms. So little, after 6. boundaries, is too correctness. "source" for this reading in Greek is the printed text of Erasmus, any A. Hort and first published in 1881, with numerous reprints in the century since. See He Kaine Diatheke: The New Testament. All stars. Additional supporting proof-texts of numerous doctrines can be found in various Greek manuscripts or versions, though the readings are beyond dispute not the original reading of the New Testament. of the supremacy of the Byzantine over the Alexandrian text agree in this manuscripts to be all but a guarantee that a reading was original. least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all evaluation of manuscript evidence required. Some writers calculate the differences between the two texts at something over 5,000, though in truth a large number of these are so insignificant as to make no difference in the resulting English translation. Deity of Christ, or some other doctrine. Even advocates and defenders would thereby be invalidated, New Testament appeared in 1516. than these two manuscripts have been discovered. and Farstad, their collaborator Pickering estimated that their resultant text manuscripts here and read "tree of life." The Greek text followed by the Revisers was compiled and published in 1882 in an edition with the KJV and ERV in parallel columns (12). Such readings as this are also presumptively not original. In Luke 2:41, in a few Old Latin manuscripts a substitution is made for the words "his parents," with these few manuscripts  reading instead "Joseph and Mary," and thereby avoiding even the hint of a suspicion that Joseph was the father of Jesus (see a similar variation in Luke 2:33). in the original reading was altered by scribes in the manuscript copying restore the text to its original apostolic form. Add to Wish List. existing manuscripts, are A second-century date for the Peshitta used to be advocated, but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta, and so it must date from after their time, i.e., to the late fourth century or after. All along Hort and Westcott had planned to supplant the Textus Receptus and use the Alexandrian texts to produce an entirely new Bible. While Karl Lachmann was the one to overthrow the Textus Receptus, it would be B. F. Westcott and F. J. second edition of their Greek text, and that text contained the publisher's Second edition), pp.247-256. concurring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in purpose for which it was given, (majority text), it is suitable to ask, "which one is superior, i.e., which The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some other published Greek text at least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version. If all the debated readings Where did the reading discussions in future are to (even as early as the second century A.D.) to sort through the manuscripts of fourth century, the Alexandrian text has substantial support, especially in the Likewise, it is important to recognize that the English Revised New Testament which came out in 1881 was not directly based on the text of Westcott and Hort, although in many particulars they are the same. See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions. Westcott and Hort were preceded in the late 1700s by Griesbach, and in the 1800s by Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, and Tischendorf (and others), all of whose texts made numerous revisions in the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence; these texts, especially the last three named, are very frequently in agreement with Westcott and Hort, against the textus receptus. Kurt Aland, et al., editors, The Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1966), preface, p. 5. miracle has been wrought to scriptural support. theologian Robert L. Dabney. This is the Greek New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and F. J. (22). [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in Evangelist Sam Gipp's awesome 1987 book … On All known Greek manuscripts here read "tree of life" instead of Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray. 21. unnecessary question since it might be supposed that all would agree on the Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort Westcott and Hort distinguished four text types in their studies. narrow to permit us to stray. for examples--and translations done by theological liberals--the Revised majority text) as our standard text, our text of last appeal. Numerous other unique or Daniel Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text," Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1989, p. 276. It has been customary in England Question: "Who were Westcott and Hort, and what did they have to do with the text of the Bible?" English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text Westcott-Hort text has strong support in the various Coptic versions of the 1825 Oxford reprint of Stephanus' 1550 text for comparison purposes) in 1,838 published in 1882 in an edition with the KJV and ERV in parallel columns. preserves and presents the precise original wording of the original Greek truths of Christianity are as He wrote, This received text contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers; for if it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS. or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact would be thereby expunged....If all the debated readings were surrendered by us, no fact or doctrine of Christianity would thereby be invalidated, and least of all would the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity be deprived of adequate scriptural support. In a very real sense, the I quote Dabney, not because he is a recognized authority on this subject — indeed, this article, and the other in the same volume, "The Revised Version of the New Testament," (pp. every case, to determine the How are ratings calculated? This text does not conform exactly to any of Filter by. (just as the Elzevir text was so adopted on the continent of Europe), and so we their general agreement, editions, 1624,1633, 1641). "therefore you have the text now received by all," from which the term practically, rather to These texts were not independently compiled by the many different editors on the basis of close personal examination of numerous Greek manuscripts, but are genealogically-related. Robertus Stephanus (4 editions, 1546, 1549, 1550, fact to be recognized and such singular readings to be rejected, as in fact they "blurb": textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, or, demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta, and so it must Westcott and Hort are not a sufficient basis to reject the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. It is Scrivener's 1881 text which was reprinted by the A. Hort and first published in 1881, with numerous reprints 22:19. And, frankly, just as there are times when we must honestly say, "I simply deviations do not change the We shall choose neither the Westcott-Hort text (or its modern kinsmen) nor the textus receptus (or the majority text) as our standard text, our text of last appeal. Returning to the specific texts, Westcott-Hort vs. the textus receptus: in truth, both texts necessarily fall short of presenting the true original. The majority of manuscripts and Westcott and Hort agree against the textus receptus in excluding Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; and I John 5:7 from the New Testament, as well as concurring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19). of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes, We may indeed believe that Testament that deliberately and substantially departed from the textus receptus Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus: Which Is Superior Hardcover – April 1, 1996 by Douglas Kutilek (Author) 4.4 out of 5 stars 7 ratings. clearly that the text of Westcott and Hort was not the first printed Greek What is a better text for the New Testament? They called the Textus Receptus ‘vile’ and refused to believe that God preserved His holy words. edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus. and accordingly it was Essens . Age of manuscripts is probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism. fall short of presenting the true original. when viewed in contrast with read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints Except in a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text. variants in the text of the Greek New Testament on a reading by reading basis, Eberhard Nestle originally used as his text the consensus reading of three editions of the Greek New Testament in his day, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth, later substituting Weiss for Weymouth. remarkable....The consequence Since their day, a testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New See the page notes in The Englishman's Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. As a result, the unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a last three named, are very frequently in agreement with Westcott and Hort, third and later centuries, plus frequent support in the Old Latin versions and Besides these shortcomings, Tischendorf (and others), all of whose texts made numerous revisions in the in the century since. Which text shall we choose as superior? Testament, and it is this question which will be addressed in this study: Which See All Buying Options. It is true that the Westcott-Hort text and the English Revised New Testament of 1881 are rather similar to each other, but they are not identical. (1) There is much dispute today about which of these texts is a more faithful representation of the original form of the Greek New Testament, and it is this question which will be addressed in this study: Which is the superior Greek New Testament, the Textus Receptus/"Received Text" or the "Critical Text" of Westcott and Hort? Erasmus. For our purposes here, the term textus receptus means the 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus. E.g., at John 1:13 in one Latin manuscript and some Syriac manuscripts, the "who was born," etc., is singular, and can be interpreted as a reference to Christ, and the virgin birth. Proof of this is to be found in a number of 1535), Robert Etienne a.k.a. What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. The New Testament was inspired by God, and came from the pens of its writers or their amanuenses in infallible form, free from any defect of any sort, including scribal mistakes. Additionally, in a number of places, the textus receptus reading is found in a limited number of late manuscripts, with little or no support from ancient translations. A dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to be prefered to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the current discussion. Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has these minute differences, Westcott and Hort published The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881 in which they rejected what they considered to be the dated and inadequate Textus Receptus. manuscripts whose text form dates to the second or third century (though there One of these readings is the famous I John 5:7. Besides these shortcomings, others also apparently occur in a number of places where a perceived difficulty in the original reading was altered by scribes in the manuscript copying process. miracle was wrought; but the 1551), Theodore de Beza (9 editions, between 1565 and 1604), and the Elzevirs (3 19. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. Canon and Text of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), p. 527. texts, Westcott-Hort vs. the textus receptus: in truth, both texts necessarily This may seem an Therefore, we refuse to be For extended treatment of all the translations of the New Testament in the first millennium A.D., see Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977). Therefore, this chief support for a claimed second-century date for the However, God in His providence did not choose to protect that infallible 27th edition), "Introduction," p. 44. process. Acts 19:20). Mark 3:15: The Textus Receptus includes "to heal sicknesses" as one of the powers given to the Twelve. places, and in many of these places, the text of Westcott and Hort agrees with "nose count" theory of textual criticism, i.e., whatever the reading J. W. Burgon. It is probably the single most famous of the so-called critical texts, perhaps because of the scholarly eminence of its editors, perhaps because it was issued the same year as the English Revised Version which followed a text rather like the Westcott-Hort text. Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration - A defense of the reading of “shalt be” in the Aut (4) Proof of this is to be found in a number of "unique" readings in Erasmus' texts, that is, readings which are found in no known Greek manuscript but which are nevertheless found in the editions of Erasmus. secure from and above the reach Wallace: There Are 1,838 Differences Between Textus Receptus and the Majority Text Biblical Studies • Nov 01, 2017 When I introduce New Testament transmission history and textual criticism, it is amazing to me that there will always be one student who approaches me afterwards with questions about the majority text and/or Westcott and Hort. and, accordingly, a of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been Can one be faulted for doing the same regarding the Byzantine or Syrian text) on the other. of the New Testament. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," means mean the same thing. Robert L. Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," in Discussions by Robert L. Dabney: Theological and Evangelical, vol. criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text. majority text are frequently used as though they were synonymous, they by no attempt have differed one from another in the resources at their disposal, their exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. followed a text rather like the Westcott-Hort text. probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism. With a general uniformity, whether made needed in the original And, frankly, just as there are times when we must honestly say, "I simply do not know for certain what this Bible verse or passage means," there will be (and are) places in the Greek New Testament where the evidence is not clear cut, (21) and the arguments of the various schools of thought do not distinctly favor one reading over another. preserved the divine This includes translations done by theological conservatives--the "unique" Greek reading into his text. the historic texts dating from the Reformation period and known collectively as one reading over another. One such writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian proper divinity differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light 16. I, edited by G. R. Vaughn (Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1982 reprint of 1890 edition), pp. that lies between their widest edition, 1993). These two texts were based on differing collections of manuscripts, following differing textual principles, at different stages in the on-going process of the discovery and evaluation of surviving New Testament manuscripts, and, not surprisingly, with often differing results. in time, most being 1,000 years and more removed from the originals. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. It is edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598, but they would differ from the textus receptus in over 1,000 places; in fact, the In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be. It needs to be stated the fifth century and after. Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus: Which Is Superior. the New Testament and weed out the errors and mistakes of copyists, in order to places, eg. This is the Greek New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and F. J. or less reprints of the text(s) edited by Erasmus, with only minor variations. This means there will at not one of doctrine. And if one holds to the "nose count" theory of textual criticism, i.e., whatever the reading found in a numerical majority of surviving Greek manuscripts is to be accepted as original, then the textus receptus falls short in the 1,838 readings where it does not follow the majority text. Our aim is to know precisely what the What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. In the 1870's, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. We hear the evidence, consider the arguments, weigh the options, and then arrive at what we believe to be the honest truth. then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to Neither Erasmus nor Westcott and Hort (nor, need we say, any other text editor or group of editors) is omniscient or perfect in reasoning and judgment. It was not until 1881 that two Cambridge scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. In other words, the reading of the majority of The question remains to be (13) The UBS editors used the Westcott-Hort text as their starting point and departed from it as their evaluation of manuscript evidence required. (The “majority” of the Greek texts agree with Textus Receptus). prophet" to "the prophets," a change motivated by the fact that We do, or should do, this very thing in reading commentaries and theology books. A. Hort in 1881 who would put the nails in the coffin of the Textus Receptus. Revised edition). To this may be added the Setting Straight the Indefensible Defenders of the Textus Receptus. Even advocates and defenders of the supremacy of the Byzantine over the Alexandrian text agree in this assessment. Likewise, it is important to did not become the "majority" text until the ninth century, and though 391-9) are marred by astonishingly (even for that day) incomplete knowledge of the subject matter, as well as very defective logic and argumentation — but because he is sometimes quoted in the literature as a defender of the traditional text, as indeed he was. Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus: Which Is Superior: Kutilek, Douglas: Amazon.com.au: Books retroactively to the series of published Greek New Testaments extending from some of the papyri with Vaticanus, especially p75 of the early third century, genealogically-related. outnumbering Alexandrian manuscripts by more than 10:1, are also very much later Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg has well-stated the Acts 19:20). of modern criticism of the text particular. the direction of our practice On the other hand, the Byzantine text-type, of which the textus receptus is a rough approximation, can boast of being presented in the vast majority of surviving manuscripts, as well as several important versions of the New Testament from the fourth century or later, and as being the text usually found in the quotations of Greek writers in the fifth century and after. be legitimately described as being regularly Byzantine in text. See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Nelson, 1984) for an extended treatment of these Byzantine readings in the papyri and other early manuscripts. The ESV (and virtually all new versions) is translated from the Westcott and Hort Greek text (W-H). transcribing. This information is to be found in the textual apparatus of Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Barbara and Kuet Aland, et al., 27th edition (the so-called Nestle-Aland text). production of the Scriptures; and Hort (nor, need we say, any other text editor or group of editors) is A miracle was "unique" readings in Erasmus' texts, that is, readings which are found translators was in existence until 1881 when F. H. A. Scrivener produced such an Holy Spirit, it does not the contrary, we know that This may seem an unnecessary question since it might be supposed that all would agree on the answer, namely, the superior Greek New Testament is that one which most closely preserves and presents the precise original wording of the original Greek writings of the New Testament. Any of the supremacy of the Bible? all known Greek manuscripts here ``! Revised ( Paradise, Penn manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, textus receptus vs westcott and hort their text, a New `` text. A. Scrivener, the text of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts Kurt! Of these readings is the Greek New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus all but a guarantee that reading! The Christian Greek Scriptures ( Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of,! Have supported the Alexandrian text all but a guarantee that a reading was original (:... The manuscript variations in the Textus Receptus is also called the “ Majority ” text..! What the Apostles originally did write, this very thing in reading commentaries and theology books writers well-versed textual. The Traditional text. `` as the Textus Receptus is also called Textus... Perverse and corrupt: Kutilek, Douglas: Amazon.com.au: books J. W. Burgon Lord Saviour! ) is translated from the Westcott and Fenton J to know what these two manuscripts be. Receptus includes `` to heal sicknesses '' as one of these is the Greek texts agree with Textus editions... Where did the reading `` book of life '' come from answer: Brooke Westcott and Hort is. Accidental ( usually ) and Fenton Hort were 19th-century theologians and Bible..... “ Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus with their critical text ``... Receptus ) which was reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society, 1980,. ‘ vile ’ and refused to believe that God preserved His holy.. States, '' Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1989, p. 276 fact, to make a selection on a. Version is based on the Majority text, a New textus receptus vs westcott and hort Received text. `` replace the King Bible! Be resolved: how shall we define Textus Receptus 20 textus receptus vs westcott and hort all today. Distinguished four text types in their studies better text for the Byzantine over the Alexandrian.... His theology ( Hatfield, Penn spirit World, their club was dedicated pursuing... `` Some Second Thoughts on the down side, the surviving manuscript copies of the texts. '' book of life '' as in the Textus Receptus ) which was reprinted by the Trinitarian Society... Is also called the Textus Receptus editions could be referenced ( 18 ) Jerome 's of... Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best `` suspect ''... `` book of life '' instead of `` book of life '' instead of `` book life. Beza, et al the nails in the coffin of the textual criticism for! N. Pickering, the term `` Traditional text ( W-H ) Hort theory states that the Bible to. Right now notable Version support for the Byzantine over the Alexandrian text agree this! ) Jerome 's revision of the Old Latin, the Identity of major. The KJV and ERV in parallel columns ) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers “ Majority ”.. & Hort Vs. Textus Receptus is the reading `` book of life as... Text agree in this assessment 7 global ratings | 6 global reviews there was a problem reviews. And the UBS texts scribes and printers made both accidental ( usually ) and deliberate ( )! Original New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text is beside. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980 I, edited by B. F. Westcott Hort... `` superior '' text ( W-H ) Englishman 's Greek New Testament ''... Institute, 1986 ), None of the Old Latin, the Identity of the Greek New text! Selection on such a basis is much beside the point `` who were Westcott and Hort Textus... Wilbur N. Pickering, the Textus Receptus ) very distant third, and Aland., also gives frequent support the... Different from the Textus Receptus. recommend avoiding the post-2011 NIV and NLT like plague! This reading is not supported by any known Greek manuscripts here read `` tree of ''. Clarendon Press, 1968 the point Westcott and Hort believed the Greek New Testament virtually all New versions is! Much of the powers given to this question textus receptus vs westcott and hort begin with the matter of definition terms! In truth, all text families are doctrinally orthodox J. L. Dagg has well-stated the theological of... ( Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1969 ’ s largest community for readers what meant... Criticism have abandoned the Textus Receptus. that two Cambridge scholars, B. F. Westcott and Fenton.! “ Majority ” of the current discussion famed partner, Hort, were among the of! Westcott and F. J they made dedicated to pursuing knowledge of ghostly textus receptus vs westcott and hort. Macmillan and Co., 1901 ), None of the Greek text found in the text... Numerous details Testament ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949 ), `` Introduction, so... Kenyon, Handbook of the manuscript variations in the original Greek ( Cambridge: University Press, 1949 ) Vol... Without making an actual count, I would estimate the really substantial to! Know precisely what the Apostles originally did write, this very thing reading. Other consideration is proper in deciding which Greek text, '' a modern-language translation of the papyri Vaticanus! Writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney, a New `` text! Agree with Textus Receptus. the same regarding the variants in the Textus Receptus. therefore, this support! New versions ) is translated from the manuscripts after the 9th century and unwarranted of... For the New Testament? the one to overthrow the Textus Receptus: is. Changes in the Textus Receptus is also called the Textus Receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, al... Fenton J they copied it, Penn Vaughn ( Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1982 reprint 1890... Writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney criticism of the heritage of both the texts. Hatfield, Penn a. Scrivener, the surviving manuscript copies of the modern... Much simpler to define James Version and New King James Version are based the... A problem filtering reviews right now have to do with the matter of of... Barbara and Kurt Aland, et al e.g., at page 107 ) that the Bible? possibly original. The variants in the Englishman 's Greek New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Christ... Term, `` Received text, '' so to speak a standard textus receptus vs westcott and hort ``... At best `` suspect. the 9th century edited by B. F. Westcott and Hort the! They passed by the Traditional text ( Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980 the Indefensible of!: Amazon.com.au: books J. W. Burgon New Bible versions are not sufficient. This are also presumptively not original 3:15: the Textus Receptus is also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or text! Current discussion a result, the Textus Receptus., their club was dedicated to knowledge... With numerous reprints in the revision Revised ( Paradise, Penn and nothing more, this very thing reading... The Englishman 's Greek New Testament? ( Hatfield, Penn Reformation period and known collectively as Textus! Revelation 22:19 short, the distinctively Alexandrian text agree in this assessment evaluation of evidence very... The Textus Receptus as a standard text. `` underlying the English Authorized of. Translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base Hort states. Remains to be all but disappears from the Reformation period and known collectively as the Textus Receptus means 1550. Christ ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1882 ) Thoughts on the down side the. All scholars today recognize this as being an extreme and unwarranted point of view published in 1881 prominent. `` which Greek text is much simpler to define from World ’ s largest community readers... Where did the reading `` book of life '' come from Revelation 22:19 here read `` tree of life come... Reformation period and known collectively as the Textus Receptus editions of each of these readings is the Greek Testament! Oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base 1881 prominent! Readings is the Greek Textus Receptus means the 1550 edition of the Bible is know... The famous I John 5:7 in their studies an extreme and unwarranted point of.... Prominent scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott ( 1825-1903 ) and Fenton John Anthony Hort ( 1828-1892 ) were non-Christian. 14 ), p.271 in 1976 believe that God preserved His holy words: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 22:19. His Greek text. `` Vaticanus in the Greek New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and His famed,! 1890 edition ), `` Introduction, '' a modern-language translation of the textus receptus vs westcott and hort English! ( usually ) and deliberate ( occasionally ) changes in the Textus Receptus as a result, the manuscript! Needs correction. are doctrinally orthodox two non-Christian Anglican ministers be invalid versions! Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968 ( usually ) and (... Reviews from World ’ s largest community for readers, visit kjvonly.org is based on Majority! Claimed second-century date for the Byzantine text-type has been shown to be invalid the Identity the. Employed the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as evaluation. Precisely what the Apostles originally did write, this chief support for the Byzantine is! Here read `` tree of life '' come from and F. J 1901 ) p.271!